Idealism, good, bad, or what?-from my Catbird's seat- repost

not wrong, but often out of place

From 02/06/13

When I first was introduced to the man who would set me straight on my opinion of myself, I considered myself as an idealist. Taken individually I had many reasons for thinking so.

That very wise and successful man who would become a respected friend till he passed away in 2009, had read a few of the essays I had written and proclaimed: "Albert, you are a pragmatist"

After considering the word for a while I had to agree with his observation.

Now it is years later and I see how the word idealism is reacted to here in WOTL.

One conservative WOTLer I Am aware of considers himself an idealist. If I were to consider his strange interpretation of what being a good Christian is all about, I would have to call him a hypocrite with idealistic tendancies.

There is no direct relationship between idealism and intelligence.

Bush was sufficiently intelligent to get where he got and get done what he did.

Carter was a President I considered a non hypocritical idealist that demonstrated why I do not like to see either idealists or hypocrites in that office.

Carter was not an effective President. Most successful leaders use idealists for "ideas" but then govern pragmatically.

President Obama is learning that some of the Bush style pragmatism works well in the Presidency.

That observation is in no way an approval of much of what I witnessed Bush doing. He just was effective in his methods in dealing with some matters expediently.

When he failed in many of his responsibilities it was because he listened to the wrong idealists and then shot from the hip.

Obama does not fear listening and often weighs carefully subsequent action, even to the consternation who want him to act faster.

The Right Wingnuts see Obama as an almost total Leftist Idealist.

I do not.

He is basically a pragmatist with less experience than Bush who came out of the Texas Governor's office. I also have observed that the President is growing well in the job.

Jimmy Carter's idealism did not serve him or America well despite it's truly Christain character.

Not only was Carter a Christian idealist but he also was known as obsessed with control as some managers and former military officers are known to be.

The duties and responsibilities of the American Presidency is too complex for an idealist, to manage regardless of Zjab's contention that all a President has to do is idealistically follow the Constitution regardless of who might suffer from strict interpretation.

A pragmatist learns and knows the rules before choosing to break any of them.

Having the stones to break rules when needed is what makes an effective President.

© 2010 Albert 1 - 3/24/15

add as favorite